A.P. RAVANI

(1.) The appellant is a holder of vacant land situated within the urban agglomeration area of Rajkot. The Competent officer by order dated 7/12/1983 declared that out of the total land holding of the petitioner land admeasuring 2015.30 sqm. is surfs. Against the aforesaid order the appellant preferred appeal under Sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 before the Urban Land Tribunal. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated 7/09/1987 The appellate challenged the legality and validate of the order passed by the urban Laud Tribunal by filing Special Civil Application No. 1009 of 1988 The petition came up for bearing before the learned single Judge cores G. T. Nanavati J of this High Court who has summarily rejected the petition as per his order dated Miracle 1 1988 It is against this order that the preSent Letters Patent Areas is filed.

(2.) The Urban Land Tribunal at ally rate exercises quasi judicial powers if not judicial power while deciding appeal under sec. 33 of the Urban L3nd (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 Whatever label be attached to the petitions challenging the legality and validity of the orders that may be passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in substance and in essence such petitions are under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India or at any rate in such matters the High Court is to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction. Thus such petitions will have to be decided on the basis of the record and within the very limited scope of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is held as above letters patent appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in such matters would not be maintainable. Therefore on this short ground alone letters patent appeal is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) We are fortified in our view by a Division Bench judgment of this High Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 202 of 1984 decided on 27/06/1984 (Coram: P. S. Poti C. J. and S. L. Talati J.). In that case Special Civil Application No. 369 of 1984 was filed challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in an appeal under sec. 33 of the Act. The petition was summarily rejected by learned Single Judge (Coram: N. H. Bhatt J.) as per order dated 19/03/1984 The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal held as follows: Since the order under challenge is that of the Urban Lands Tribunal and officio secretary to Government passed in his capacity as Tribunal the petition. before the learned signal Judge could have been only under Art. 227 of the Con stitution and if so the Letters Patent Appeal is not competent hence dismissed. Similar view is taken by a Division Bench consisting of P. R. Gokula krishnan C.J. and G. T. Nanavati J. in L.P.A. No. 213 of 1986 decided on 19/02/1987 In that case also an order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal was challenged by way of petition before this High Court and learned single Judge of this High Court (Coram: D. H. Shukla J) rejected the petition. The matter was carried before Division Bench by way of L.P.A. No. 213 of 1986 While dismissing the letters patent appeal the Division Bench observed that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same and the petition was under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the appellants on the ground that it was time barred. Thereafter the Court observed as follows: Our Court has held that the Letters Patent Appeal will not lie against such an order passed in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(4.) In view of the aforesaid settled legal position petition challening legality and validity of order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal in appeal under Sec. 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 is in substance and in essence a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. When such petitions are decided by learned single Judge of this High Court one way or the other the same cannot be challenged by way of letters patent appeal before Division Bench of this High Court. In above view of the matter Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Hence dismissed.